All in the Family featured the curmudgeonly Archie Bunker. Archie was television’s most famous grouch, blunt, blustering, straightforward and untouched by the PC crowd. He was the archetype of the conservative male. Michael desprately tried to reeducate him, but he persisted in his breviloquence.

Looking back at the last 40 years, we realize: ARCHIE WAS RIGHT!


Flaw or Feature

This idea has been bouncing around in my head.  What do you think about it?

Male/female interaction, mate selection, marriage, child rearing, game etc all boils down to a fundamental understanding of human sexuality. 

On one hand it is possible to view human sexuality as a very flawed process; on the other, human sexuality could be a design feature.

If human sexuality is a flawed process based in conflicting evolutionary instincts, would we see the number of problems that have become apparent in the last 50 years of western civilization?  If indeed h/s is an evolutionary process, shouldn’t we see an overall improvement in mate selection and procreation in general?

The traditional churchish view that sex is dirty or shameful and only tolerated for procreation would address the sociological problems in modern society.  It falls short in other areas of investigation such as pair bonding and child rearing.

A third view seems more rational.  Human sexuality is a design feature built into the species homo sapiens.  This view, while potentially more rational, is also more troubling and challenging theologically for modern church goer. Because if its true that h/s is a design feature the question becomes, “why aren’t we teaching about it from that perspective?  .


  1. Human sexuality is hard wired into us by God. He wanted us to enjoy our spouses, but He did not intend for us to abuse it with adultery, fornication, and other deviant behavior.

    I think your comment about the traditional "sex is dirty" comes from some of the cherry picking that some churches do in their teaching. If you rely only on one part of the Bible, instead of taking it as a whole pie, then you are only going to get part of the message, instead of the whole thing.

    My guess would be that human sexuality isn't being taught from that perspective because it would be labeled as being judgmental by the liberal folks who prefer the softer, more fluffy versions of God's word. It would mean getting into why homosexuality is wrong, why adultery is wrong, along with all the "free sex until you drop" lifestyle is wrong.

    That is why a lot of Christians have a big problem with Vox's notions on the subject of "game" in dating. It just seems that he is advocating not chastity until marriage, but all the fornication a man can handle.

  2. I've given some thought to the Game subject. It seems to me that as far as the observations of behavior are concerned, it is a morally neutral metric, not a method. Applying those observations to achieve a specific goal can be either moral or immoral depending on the goal and the methods employed. For example one of the most common "methods" mentioned is to get into better shape physically. This seems morally neutral to me. It also seems like advice to the truly clueless, but maybe that's what some of them are.

    The statement, "I'm a guy and I want to get laid". Is morally neutral at worst and a moral imperative at its best.

    I can't condemn it because scripture does not. In fact scripture says: "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and cleave..." What is this cause Adam is referring to? The butt naked, sexually desirable and readily available women standing in front of him. What is it the man is supposed to do about the situation? Cleave to her. Not as some translations down play it, "be joined", they are to "cleave". Frankly that word implies a more passionate and energetic union than a mere "joining together".

    As we take the words of Jesus into account, the phrase "what God has joined together..", implies a morally implicit and divinely ordained affair.

    Human sexuality should be viewed (from a Christian world view) as a activity that is a designed feature and apparatus necessary to human existence. Which means that every component to h/s has a planed function.

  3. The thing to keep in mind is that the actual sex act is the marriage ceremony. All that other stuff is just human invention.

  4. Bill,

    I get what you are saying and agree. The greater point that I'm pondering is that EVERY aspect of how men are and EVERY aspect of how women are is a intentional designed feature that is in place to enhance the overall product/experience.

    That means the fact that guys are visually stimulated to respond to the gals is a good thing. Its part of the plan. The fact that the sex act releases chemicals into the brain that makes sex physiologically and psychologically addictive is part of the plan and its a good thing.

    Church goers focus on the sin aspect of misusing sex. What I'm starting to think about is how we should focus on the design features and how they are meant for our benefit.

    As a Christian man all aspects of my spiritual walk are enhanced when the sex is good. If the sex is average or poor either in quantity or quality my spiritual focus is disrupted. I suspect that this is true for other guys as well, but I've not seen research or discussion on about it.